(Newser)
–
It's a seesaw day for ObamaCare: One federal appeals court delivered what was seen as potentially devastating news to the health care law today, but hours later a second appeals court came to the opposite conclusion. Both decisions revolve around subsidies for people who signed up for ObamaCare on the federal exchange, as opposed to a state exchange. This morning, a three-judge panel in DC ruled that the federal enrollees aren't eligible for subsidies, which the Washington Post called a "potentially crippling blow" to ObamaCare. Without those subsidies, millions of low- and middle-income people who signed up would likely be unable to afford their premiums.

Later, however, a three-judge panel from a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled in a separate case that subsidies for those on the federal exchange are fine, reports CNN. Or, more specifically, it said that the law's language was murky and thus deferred to the IRS on the matter, reports Reuters. The IRS has previously said that the subsidies can go to people no matter whether they signed up on a federal or state exchange. Expect both decisions to be appealed, with no final resolution likely until the Supreme Court weighs in.

Obamacare: Welfare for the insurance companies and the medical community.

2cent

Jul 24, 2014 2:23 AM CDT

The one-sided vote, the botched 'rollout,' "You can keep your plan," and now the '"Dueling Rulings" should be enough to tell you what's to come with Obamacare. Drunk on his perceived 'power' , he simply overreached, and bit off more than we could chew. When the number of lawsuits ,personal and class-action, gets out of control, and the currently unenlightened see the light, Obamacare will be repealed.

Wayne Baumgartner

Jul 23, 2014 2:55 AM CDT

Well, it was enacted and now we're finding out what's in it. People, guess where those subsidies are coming from? Your pockets, that's where. Means more and higher taxes on anybody with any income. Don't forget to remove the incumbents from office in both of our two ruling parties in the primaries, elections in 2014 and the elections in 2016. If "incumbent" they've proven to be incompetent.